dofuswikifandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Lirielle/MonsterCategories
Overall like this list. However I would like to propose some changes (in grammar as well as content). :#Sewers Monsters --> Sewer Monsters -- sounds better, looks better, and follows the trend of keeping first part singular (these monsters are almost always the same in every sewer update may change that a bit) (also first part singular --> city, forest, field) :#Boowolf --> Boowolves -- i propose to keep the individual categories plural. :#Other -- let's keep them separately under forest. we don't need categories like "other forest monsters". :#Treechnidian -- i am pretty sure that this can be considered plural (ie. like sheep/sheep) :#Kwak Villages Guardians -- i think villages should be singular. see note 1. :#Bandits & Guards -- this is a tricky one. first, i don't understand what guards means (if you mean knights and militiamen then the following example suits). but, i definitely don't feel like the bandits should be on cania. they are most numerous on the bandits peninsula in amakna which is more foresty region. also, you are forgetting dark people. so, baring this in mind, i would create a new category called "humanoids" (i don't know if this should be under something, but it could also be a distinct category under habitats, because humanoids tend to live everywhere). under which would be: :::*Bandits :::*(City) Guards :::*Dark People (??) :#Blop --> Blops -- see note 2 :#Dragoturkey --> Dragoturkeys -- see note 2 :#Scaraleaf --> Scaraleafs -- see note 2 :#Moor Monsters -- maybe just keep them inside that category as i proposed for other. :#Cemetery Monsters -- doesn't work at all. half of them don't live in cemetaries. night monsters is also not very good (but i think still a bit better). wild monsters? evil monsters? don't know. (also you have swamp monsters twice under there) :#Pandala Ghost --> Pandala Ghosts -- see note 2 :#Pandala Monsters (villages) -- would put all of these under Pandala Monsters and remove this stupid category :#Kwismas Island Monsters -- would move this under geographical, because the island actually exists. :#Additional groups -- would add "Event Monsters" (halloween, santa cloth minitoball) and "Retired Monsters" (dragoturkey, wild dragoturkey) name this "Extinct Monsters" :) but even with this grouping i would place mushd under both sewer and swamp. gobkool under cave and gobballs. etc.--ilmarine 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC) :I said it was as draft... it wasn't event a draft, just the draft of a draft ;). IOW, 'under construction'. Some of the mistakes you point out I already noticed, so I have little problems with what you say. Some categories are indeed misplaced but I'll correct as I add specific monsters. Anyway, I'll take your remarks into account while doing so. --Lirielle 21:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ::I know you said that. Just trying to get my voice in already in the early stages :) --ilmarine 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Minor flaw There are 3 great categories that you (or amakna) are creating: Habitat, Geografical, and Special. Now Habitat and Geographical are 2 categories that can overlap, example Gobball is a monster of the Field habitat but there is also cave gobball that its a monster of the Cave habitat, but in terms of geographical gobballs is a monster of of Amakna, Astrub, taintela and koalak mountains. So how you are displaying the monsters creates a discrepancy as both categories are overlapping and if you look a monster by geographic you will not find it because its on habit. Also trechnidian, rats, birds, pigs, and some others. The special category is for all that does not fall on the other 2 great categories. My guess is that it would be better if the monsters stick to habbitat or to type of monsters, and the geographical can keep separate to the geographic category, as we have been creating slowly geographical categories for NPC, places, quests, etc and will do also by monsters for dynamic listings (or semantic?) some categories like Pandala monsters would change to a habitat maybe of "bamboo habitat" or something like that and add an extra pandala category so that way all the monsters of pandala will be on the super geographical category where all the previous subjects are en-globe. Dont know if i explain my self sufficient as its a mess how amakna does it already.--Cizagna (Talk) 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) :Well, not really, since I am not adding places like amakna or astrub in the Geographical categories, only places with their specific sets of monsters. IOW, the Geographical section is not meant to be "all monsters per geographical area". It is only comprised of regions where the 'habitat' grouping is not relevant. :In fact, we have two groups of regions: 'self-contained' regions with their own monsters (eg. Moon island) and regions (amakna, cania...) with different sets of monsters according to their habitat. And the overlap between these two groups is little if any. Be aware that the headings 'habitat' and 'geographical' are cosmetic and will NOT be categories per se. IOW the suggested hierarchy would be Monsters > Field Monsters > Larvae (NOT Monsters > Habitat Categories > Field Monsters > Larvae). Eg: :*Monsters > Field Monsters > Larvae > Blue Larva :*Monsters > Breeder Village Creatures > Koalaks > Bloody Koalak :*Monsters > Protectors > Ore Protectors > Bronze Crackrock :In most cases, we will end up with a 4-level hierarchy: :1. Supercategory "Monsters" :2. A 'Where do I find this monster?' category: "On Moon Island", "In field maps (of Astrub, Amakna...)" :3. A "Family" subcategory :4. The individual monsters :Some monsters are the only members of their family (Prespic). We can either skip lvl3, or have a Prespics family with only one member. I think I prefer the latter, so we could have a similar structure for all monsters. :This being said, we won't avoid some overlap. Crows, for example, are found in company of cracklers as well as in Sidimote moor, for example (one is even a quest monster). Sometimes, we will have to decide which category is most relevant. In other cases, we will probably use two different categorizations (a Shin larva belongs to both Larvae AND Boss Monsters.) Note that, although I added it here, "Boss Monsters" does not belong to the hierarchy and we should be able to find another category for all bosses. "Boss Monsters" is a kind of transversal category. :For the reasons you exposed, I don't think it would useful to link ALL monsters to a geographical region, since we would have several possible places for many monsters. :IMVHO, the 4-tier hierarchy as set out hereabove is logical and well-structured, even if level 2 is comprised of categories based on different criteria. :--Lirielle 00:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, ok its better than what I thought you where working, but still it confuses me the idea when i will be looking for a monster and stumble with the moon islands (easy to spot that those are moon related) and then go looking something that has no geographical relevance, thats why i rarely check monsters in community site its confusing. And I can feel that Kishou will complain about this once he sees it. Aside from the cosmetic of geographical, im slowly developing a super-geographical category (will englobe many different subjects) that if i read correctly its a semantic order but can be done later once we have this more sort out. Tell me when you finish this to your satisfactions so we can start a going in this more deeply as the monsters its a very complex hierarchy. --Cizagna (Talk) 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC) New idea Ok, lately as i have been browsing other wikis, and i have been also reviewing game files information i have come up with the first initial approach that i think is better, in this case will affect only the categories pages, first we have Amaknas classification already state * "monsters of the field" -> "Tofus" -> "Batofu". So in any case we have fixed 2 category levels, now we should create 2 categories inside the monster category: # Amakna classification # Race classification ; The "Amakna classification" : Will have their system as they put it to the very end detail. mainly how its originally propose on the above sections. ; The "Race classification" : Basically this will be a duplicate category of Amakna classification but will jump the habitat categorization, this will only and specifically affect how the categories are categorize. And if some one is looking for a monster eg: a koala he knows its a koala but does not know it leaves on breeders village he can easily find it trough the race clasification. Im still thinking on the geographical aspect but for now i guess those 2 would be the super sub categories of monsters --Cizagna (Talk) 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)